Theoretical foundations of the formation and development of the institution of lobbying in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article provides a systematic analysis of the formation and development of the institution of lobbying in Canada. Analyzed the Act on Lobbying, which was adopted in 1988, the "Act of Transparency and Lobbying Ethics" and others. Canadian laws were enacted to combat corruption, ensure transparency and openness of the political process, for which a mechanism was created to register interest groups involved in political activities. Open lobbying provided an opportunity to understand the processes taking place in politics, as well as to balance private interests with the public. For example, if one political force acts in the private interest of any corporation, their opponent will seek to oppose it or another private or public interest, depriving the competitor of benefits. The analysis of the experience of regulation of the institute of lobbying in Canada gives grounds to note the following. First, the institution of lobbying in Canada is clearly regulated, which gives grounds to establish the responsibility of lobbyists and regulate their activities. Secondly, a register of lobbyists through an electronic database has been introduced, as well as permanent re-registration of lobbyists: at the federal level - every 6 months for all, in Ontario the deadline for lobbyists-consultants is set at 3 months (different clients who change more often), for corporate - 6 months. Third, lobbyists must report monthly on all interactions with officials. Fourth, liability is established for refusal to register in the electronic register, as well as the indication of false data entered in the register. Fifth, there is the Commissioner for Lobbying, who has broad rights to investigate violations of the Law on Lobbyists and Lobbying.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".